JUDGMENT Ravindra V.Ghuge, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17/04/2018 passed by the learned Cabinet Minister for Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection (Mr.Girish Bapat) by which the proceedings initiated by respondent No.6 Fair Price Shop License Holder, has been allowed. Grievance is that the learned Minister has quashed and set aside the orders of the District Supply Officer (For short, D.S.O.) dated 08/06/2016 and the Deputy Commissioner (Supplies), Aurangabad dated 04/08/2017 and has restored the license of respondent No.6 by concluding as under :- 2. I have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocates for the petitioner and respondent No.6 and the learned AGP on behalf of the learned Minister and the statutory authorities. 3. The learned AGP has vehemently submitted that when the learned Minister came to a conclusion that no offences are proved against respondent No.6, he has rightly interfered with the decision rendered by the D.S.O. and the Deputy Commissioner (Supplies). He further submits that merely because the Tahsildar has submitted his detailed report, cannot be a ground for cancellation of the license of respondent No.4. He further adds that there were only 14 card holders who have deposed against respondent No.6 and 57 card holders have stated that they have no complaints. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that respondent No.6 is politically well connected. Even during the reenquiry ordered by the Deputy Commissioner, he had attempted to pressurize the card holders. Some of the card holders were won over by him and it indicates that the said license holder has attempted to influence the complaining card holders. 5. Learned Advocate for respondent No.6 vehemently submits that the order of the D.S.O. is cryptic in nature. He has not discussed the details of the statements made. He has not assigned any reasons on the basis of the statements recorded, while canceling the license of respondent No.6. He is ready and willing to face a fresh enquiry. If this Court is inclined to allot the fair price shop temporarily to any other person, any Bachat Gut in the said area could be preferred. The enquiry could be concluded within a time frame. 6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that if the D.S.O. has not properly considered the statements recorded by the card holders in the impugned order, the R & P can be called for by this Court. The enquiry could be concluded within a time frame. 6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that if the D.S.O. has not properly considered the statements recorded by the card holders in the impugned order, the R & P can be called for by this Court. A re-enquiry would mean that respondent No.6 would once again get an opportunity of pressurizing the card holders. He has succeeded in winning over some card holders in the earlier reenquiry. Because of his political connections, he would pressurize and influence 14 card holders who have deposed truthfully and it would be a mockery to direct the D.S.O. to once again enquire into the matter. 7. I have perused the order dated 06/08/2016 delivered by the District Supply Officer, Beed Mr.Santosh Zumberlal Raut. It is apparent that the D.S.O. has shirked his responsibility and has casually passed the order, though material was before him. In a matter involving an enquiry and more so when the enquiry is on the basis of the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, (Supplies), the D.S.O. should have considered the record and the statements of the card holders and his conclusions should have been based on proper reasons for which he should have analyzed the record in his order. I record my displeasure on account of the casualness on the part of the D.S.O. in passing a cryptic order. 8. It, however, cannot be ignored that the Deputy Commissioner, (Supplies), Aurangabad has considered the entire record threadbare. The said authority has gone into the details of the complaint. It is recorded that there were about 16 card holders who had specifically complained that grains and kerosene are not made available for them. Respondent No.6 used to threaten the card holders, would avoid distribution of grains on regular basis, did not tender the records for the inspection of the D.S.O., used to abuse the card holders and he avoided making submissions before the D.S.O. 9. It is also recorded that the license of respondent No.6 was suspended from 04/11/2015. He was given a specific show cause notice on 18/07/2015. He did not tender a satisfactory reply and did not produce the record. Since there were allegations that he was selling the grains and the kerosene in the open market at higher rates, his shop premises were raided by the Parali Rural Police. Even the police found serious lapses on his part. He did not tender a satisfactory reply and did not produce the record. Since there were allegations that he was selling the grains and the kerosene in the open market at higher rates, his shop premises were raided by the Parali Rural Police. Even the police found serious lapses on his part. Respondent No.6 had also included the name of a dead person and had shown distribution of the grains to him. 10. The Deputy Commissioner has further recorded findings in the light of the submissions of the advocates appearing on behalf of the respective sides. It was noticed that the Registers and records statutorily required to be maintained by respondent No.6, had not been maintained. Some scribbling of calculations on the last page of the cash memo was shown to the D.S.O. Taking into account all the above factors, the Deputy Commissioner (Supplies) concluded that though there are 203 card holders, there was hardly anything recorded in the registers which were seized by the D.S.O. The grains and kerosene were shown to have been sold and yet there was no record to indicate distribution to the legitimate card holders. It was, therefore, concluded that those card holders below poverty line who were supposed to be disbursed with grains and kerosene at lowest rates, the record would not indicate such disbursement. 11. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has cited an order passed by this Court on 11/09/2017 in WP No.10800/2017 in the matter of Sakharam Pandurang Rathod vs. The State of Maharashtra and others. He also points out that this Court has set aside similar orders passed by the same learned Minister in WP No.2701/2015 (Rajendra Devidas vs. State of Maharashtra and others) and WP No.10343/2017 (Digambar Karbhari vs. The State of Maharashtra). 12. In a similar matter in Sakharam Pandurang Rathod (supra), the same learned Minister had set aside the cancellation of the license of a fair price shop by holding that the said license holder must get an opportunity to run his business. In similar circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner (Civil Supplies) had observed in paragraph No.5 in Sakharam (supra) as under :- "5. The petitioner / original complainant approached the Deputy Commissioner (Civil Supplies) by filing an appeal on 23.6.2016. In similar circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner (Civil Supplies) had observed in paragraph No.5 in Sakharam (supra) as under :- "5. The petitioner / original complainant approached the Deputy Commissioner (Civil Supplies) by filing an appeal on 23.6.2016. After perusing the entire record threadbare and by considering the contentions of all the sides, the Deputy Commissioner (Civil Supplies) has recorded certain shocking and startling facts / instances, which are as under:- (a) The entire deposit amount of respondent No.5, though was forfeited by way of punishment for the misdeeds committed by him, the DSO restored the license of respondent No.5 even going against the enquiry report of the SDO Sailu, dated 31.10.2015. (b) 41 card holders, some of whose names have been mentioned in the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Civil Supplies), establish on the basis of the record that the distribution of the food grains from the said fair price shop was not being maintained by respondent No.5. (c) Distribution of the grains to some of the card holders was not visible from the records. (d) Inconsistent and interrupted entries of the card holders indicated interrupted supply of food grains. (e) Respondent No.5 gave reasons that grain supplies were not made earlier and hence the grains were not distributed, which was not evident from the record. (f) The report of the Inspecting Officer indicated in clause 5 that even after the license of respondent No.5 was cancelled, he had lifted food grains in October 2014 and May 2015, to the extent of 6.24 quintals of wheat, 5.68 quintals of rice and 0.30 quintals of grains from the Antyoday Scheme claiming that the said food grains were the part of the arrears of the earlier supplies. (g) After lifting such a huge stock of grains, there was no evidence of the distribution of said grains to any card holders." 13. Even in the instant case, the learned AGP has made a valiant attempt to support the impugned order passed by the learned Minister. 14. In Sakharam (supra), this Court had recorded in paragraph No.9 and 14 are as under :- "9. I find that the Honourable Minister''s impugned order practically means that if respondent No.5 has robbed the people once, he should refrain from robbing them again and he should be given an opportunity to conduct his business. 14. In Sakharam (supra), this Court had recorded in paragraph No.9 and 14 are as under :- "9. I find that the Honourable Minister''s impugned order practically means that if respondent No.5 has robbed the people once, he should refrain from robbing them again and he should be given an opportunity to conduct his business. The Honourable Minister who is the custodian of the interest of the citizens and the State, could not have turned a blind eye to the conclusions of the Deputy Commissioner (Civil Supplies), which are based on the record maintained by the State authorities. 10. I find that when respondent No.5 has lifted grains for a quantity of 6.24 quintals of wheat, 5.68 quintals of rice and 0.30 quintals of grains and there is no evidence that the said grains were ever distributed to any card holders since the very fair price shop of respondent No.5 was already closed down, the Honourable Minister should have refrained from restoring the license of the petitioner. 11. Coincidentally, this happens to be the third case before this Court, where in such unsustainable orders have been passed by the same Honorable Minister. The earlier cases were (i) Writ Petition No. 2701 of 2015 (Rajendra Devidas Kate vs. State of Maharashtra and others) and (ii) 10343 of 2017 (Digambar Karbhari Huse vs. State of Maharashtra and others) in which this Court has passed orders on 23.8.2017. 12. Learned AGP and the learned counsel for respondent No.5 submit that they still desire to file affidavit-in-reply in this matter. 13. Since the above request is made, the same is granted. 14. However, considering the above, I find that it would not be in the interest of the common man, the State and the intent and object of the Essential Commodities Act to permit respondent No.5 to start his fair price shop on the orders of the Honourable Minister. As such the impugned order dated 20.6.2017 shall stand stayed. Respondent No.1 shall initiate steps to allot / make an alternate arrangement for distribution of the food grains to the card holders with any other shop or as respondent No.1 may deem fit and proper, to ensure that the persons living below poverty line, who are card holders, are not deprived of the supplies of grains. Respondent No.1 shall initiate steps to allot / make an alternate arrangement for distribution of the food grains to the card holders with any other shop or as respondent No.1 may deem fit and proper, to ensure that the persons living below poverty line, who are card holders, are not deprived of the supplies of grains. Respondent No.1 would divest respondent No.5 of distribution of the grains and instead operate the said price shop through some other Self Help Group or as is permissible under the law." 15. In the matter of Digambar Karbhari Huse vs. The State and others in WP No.10343/2017, this Court vide order dated 23/08/2017 dealt with a similar order passed by the same learned Minister and had observed that though the learned Minister is a custodian and protector of the rights and privileges of the citizens of the State, he had failed in his duties by disregarding such rights and by restoring the license of a fair price shop operator who was guilty of glaring misdeeds. It is quite surprising that the same learned Minister continues to pass identical orders with little respect for the majesty of Law and the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. A similar order was passed in similar circumstances concerning a different learned Minister by this Court (Coram : S.S.Shinde, J.) in Dnyanoba Kundlik Kekan vs. The State of Maharashtra in WP No.7681/2011. 16. In view of the above, I find that the learned Minister was over indulgent in setting aside the orders of the D.S.O. and especially the Deputy Commissioner (Civil Supplies) who has delivered a well reasoned order after considering the record threadbare. The learned Minister seems to have lost sight of the fact that his jurisdiction is akin to revisional jurisdiction and he cannot be over indulgent in setting aside a well reasoned order and moreso in the backdrop of the allegation that respondent No.6 is politically well-connected. 17. This petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 17/04/2018 passed by the learned Minister is quashed and set aside. The judgment of the Deputy Commissioner (Civil Supplies) dated 04/08/2017 and the order of the D.S.O. dated 06/08/2016 stand restored with immediate effect.